The change and continuity in the securitization of EU energy narrative(s) and policy in light of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine 2014-2022: the case of the European Parliament

Abstract

The research aims to examine the securitization process of energy policy that has been addressed in the European Parliament debates in light of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in 2022 while accessing the correlation between the securitization process and the concept of resilience. Bearing in mind that the Union has long been highly dependent on external energy supply, especially Russian-produced fossil fuels such as gas and oil. Apart from the energy dependency, the ideological differences between Russia and the EU consequently influence their geopolitical ambitions, projects, energy narratives, and policies. Such energy dynamics have long existed since the 2000s and have deteriorated. The time frame of the research was set from 2014 to 2022 to trace the progression of the change and continuity of narratives since the Annexation of Crimea in 2014. The research focuses heavily on the inter-subjective dynamics among the political groups during parliamentary debates, which consequently influenced the framing of threats, especially Russia, as a threat to European energy security. Therefore, the research set up a background of a contested European Union regarding the perspectives on Russia’s role in European energy governance and the exercise of energy policies, despite the European Commission’s effort to provide consistent energy narrative and policies. The research findings identified that four narratives tend to be present in terms of energy/energy security during parliamentary debates. In addition, the EU energy discourses and policies tend to lean towards resilient-oriented measures such as fundamental and sustainable change of policies that correspond with the Union’s climate-neutral goals. With regards to the four narratives produced, on the one hand, the EPP, S&D, Renew and Greens/EFA groups shared a similar narrative of Russia as a malign influence on European energy security since 2014; on the other, was the Eurosceptic Left and ID group that would instead go ‘business as usual’ with Russia. Nevertheless, the severity of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had the entire parliament taken aback while voicing support for implementing emergency measures, highlighting the technical aspect of the securitization process instead of the ‘speech act’. Lastly, the research concluded that despite innate internal contestation, the European Parliament can act as a securitizing actor when undergoing exogenous shock. Moreover, the narrative produced by the European Commission and Parliament can have an interlocking effect enhancing the Union’s decision-making process.